[Echognome]

I don't have a problem if some people think they don't get any use out of one liners. Others may. And seriously, what is the alternative? Are we going to have some moderate out all one-liners? It seems like moaning about one-liner responses is like complaining that there is a long line at the department of motor vehicles. Most people will think "Yeah, and....?"

[jillybean]

I was thinking about this the other day too and decided that they are helpful or easy to skip over if you are looking for a detailed reply. Its just fun and shouldn’t be taken as an insult. Im sure some of my WTP responses indicate I haven’t considered the alternatives rather than there are none.
I do like being the first to respond to a thread and then having one of the big guns say ‘Agree with Jilly WTP’

LOL's are harsh.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Feb 20 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

My view:

If someone has posted an answer that includes the explanation, then I will often say 'I agree with 'x'' or something similar. There are often divergent views, and knowing that some other players take one side or the other may help the OP or any other reader. And if the post with which I agree covered my points, anything I add would be redundant.

I rarely (my memory may be letting me down) post simple 'wtp' comments, at least not early in a thread. I think that this comment, along with LOL, should be reserved for posts clearly in the wrong forum (we've recently experienced that) or for people suspected of trolling. Otherwise, to my mind, the main 'benefit' derived from posting an 'LOL' or a 'wtp' is a feeling of superiority on the part of the poster.

I take almost all posts as legitimate questions. Some will seem to me to be very simple, and I am sure we all experience that to some degree. But the asking of the question tells us that someone else had a problem with the topic.

If someone goes to the trouble of asking a question, why answer it with LOL or wtp? How does that help the OP'er? It doesn't. It can only serve to make that person feel stupid or ill-informed... and may persuade them, as mycroft suggests, to quit posting and maybe quit the game. We'd be left with a small, smug, arrogant set of posters and a small, smug, arrogant set of players. That's why I think josh is wrong to not care about players who aren't as talented, as experienced, or as dedicated to the game as he is.

I have derived a lot of pleasure from the game. So have all of the experts who post here. I see answering questions as giving back... plus, I learn from the posts where others disagree with my ideas. How can I do either by posting 'LOL' or 'wtp'?

I think the Mike and I really like and take advantage of one-line posting. If you look through the BBF posts over the years, you will agree that Mike and I are masters at brevity. Concise statements of our positions, summed up in very short bullet points and acronyms. In fact, neither of us really think that it really takes that much to express our opinions. "WTP" and "I agree with Mike" is set up as a function on my computer (press F3 or F4). I'm sure Mike also has this set up on his computer, albeit with "I agree with Ken" probably his F4.

[Walddk]

I think "wtp" and "LOL" answers are arrogant. If posters ask a question, it's a relevant question for them. In my opinion you should either give them a detailed reply or refrain from answering if you think the question (or point) is stupid.

If you think a question is stupid, and you can't help yourself, then at least tell the poster why he/she is wrong ... in a polite fashion.

Roland

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 20 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

My view:

If someone has posted an answer that includes the explanation, then I will often say 'I agree with 'x'' or something similar. There are often divergent views, and knowing that some other players take one side or the other may help the OP or any other reader. And if the post with which I agree covered my points, anything I add would be redundant.

I rarely (my memory may be letting me down) post simple 'wtp' comments, at least not early in a thread. I think that this comment, along with LOL, should be reserved for posts clearly in the wrong forum (we've recently experienced that) or for people suspected of trolling. Otherwise, to my mind, the main 'benefit' derived from posting an 'LOL' or a 'wtp' is a feeling of superiority on the part of the poster.

I take almost all posts as legitimate questions. Some will seem to me to be very simple, and I am sure we all experience that to some degree. But the asking of the question tells us that someone else had a problem with the topic.

If someone goes to the trouble of asking a question, why answer it with LOL or wtp? How does that help the OP'er? It doesn't. It can only serve to make that person feel stupid or ill-informed... and may persuade them, as mycroft suggests, to quit posting and maybe quit the game. We'd be left with a small, smug, arrogant set of posters and a small, smug, arrogant set of players. That's why I think josh is wrong to not care about players who aren't as talented, as experienced, or as dedicated to the game as he is.

I have derived a lot of pleasure from the game. So have all of the experts who post here. I see answering questions as giving back... plus, I learn from the posts where others disagree with my ideas. How can I do either by posting 'LOL' or 'wtp'?

I think the Mike and I really like and take advantage of one-line posting. If you look through the BBF posts over the years, you will agree that Mike and I are masters at brevity. Concise statements of our positions, summed up in very short bullet points and acronyms. In fact, neither of us really think that it really takes that much to express our opinions. "WTP" and "I agree with Mike" is set up as a function on my computer (press F3 or F4). I'm sure Mike also has this set up on his computer, albeit with "I agree with Ken" probably his F4.

1. I agree with Ken

2. wtp?

3. LOL

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Feb 20 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

I'm sure Mike also has this set up on his computer, albeit with "I agree with Ken" probably his F4.

Considering the hour tariffs lawyers use to charge me, I am happy to know that you guys program your computers as to enhance your productivity. I am sure your F5 key produces "Let me ***-**** you, it only takes a minute".

[Lobowolf]

I think the "agree with" posts (assuming the post being agreed with expounded on the reasoning) are fine, and even useful in that they show that the explanation reflects more than one person's opinion. I usually find "wtp" to be on the obnoxious/arrogant side, and "lol" even moreso.

[sathyab]

TimG, on Feb 20 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 20 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

it's reassuring to know that a known expert (Such as jdonn or JLOL or Frances etc...) agrees with the point that the other poster is making. Also it's good to know that if a well known poster agrees with my post then I have the idea correct, and don't need to change my line of thought on this particular type of problem.

I think what people find annoying is when the non-experts chime in with their "I agree" posts AFTER the jdonns and JLOLs of the forum have posted. It might be nice to know that you agree with a well known poster, but you don't need to announce it.

If you can on the same wave length at the bridge table, we would be invincible as a pair

[awm]

Echognome, on Feb 20 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

I don't have a problem if some people think they don't get any use out of one liners. Others may. And seriously, what is the alternative? Are we going to have some moderate out all one-liners? It seems like moaning about one-liner responses is like complaining that there is a long line at the department of motor vehicles. Most people will think "Yeah, and....?"

I'd like to think that most posters care at least a little bit about making these forums a fun and friendly place for everyone. If it turns out that a substantial percentage of people find these types of responses annoying, I'd think that many folks could self-censor a little bit and post fewer of them. On the other hand, if almost everyone finds these types of posts useful then the small minority which is annoyed by them could accept this and stop complaining about it.

Certainly it could be that people don't self-censor at all, don't care about the feelings of others, and that enforced censorship by the moderators is the only way to change people's behavior. But I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that yet, despite some evidence...

In any case, I find these sorts of one-liner responses annoying. It is a mild waste of time when there is a new post on some thread and I go to read it only to discover it's "agree with XXX." I also think the "agree" posts are somewhat egotistical, as if it's essential that everyone hear the poster's opinion even though it's exactly the same as someone else's opinion and there's nothing new backing it up. And the "WTP" posts are somewhat insulting to the person who started the thread (who obviously thought it was a problem). Now it's true that perhaps some threads "deserve" the WTP treatment, but at the same time ignoring these threads will usually cause them to disappear, and a gentle comment that the thread might be in the wrong forum could be a less annoying and more productive way to handle the issue.

[Echognome]

I understand what you are saying Adam, but a few points:

1. If someone posts a clear reasoning that was close to the reasoning that you would think, it doesn't add anything to type the same reasoning. However, it may be helpful to someone that you say that you were thinking along the same lines, so you would like to type "agree with XXX", rather than type the same reasoning over again. Furthermore, say that we have two posts, both with reasoning that come to different conclusions. Along comes Expert Poster who reads the responses and finds one of the posts compelling and along their lines of thinking. Rather than not posting at all, I would rather have Expert Poster say "agree with XXX".

2. The WTP depends somewhat on context. I understand the underlying tones of "why are you posting such an obvious problem?" However, it could alternatively be, "this was a very easy decision for me to make," as opposed to "I'm considering 3 or 4 choices and it's close."

3. Again, by doing a litmus test of feelings, I don't really think it will lead to anything. Suppose we all come to the conclusion in this thread that one-liners are "bad". So what happens next? People will continue to do one-line responses (if not the current set of now educated posters, then a set of new-to-the-forum posters). Do we flame them? Do we have the moderators delete their posts? Etc.

4. I do recognize that the motive may simply be one of education. "I do not like one-line posts, because..." or "One-line posts should be ok, because..." and that may help posters either think before responding or accept one-line posts. I agree with you on that front.

[jdonn]

awm, on Feb 20 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

I also think the "agree" posts are somewhat egotistical, as if it's essential that everyone hear the poster's opinion even though it's exactly the same as someone else's opinion and there's nothing new backing it up.

This I really don't understand. Are you saying that if someone has posted an answer I agree with based on reasoning I agree with that I have no business even responding? I'm egotistical for thinking someone might care about my opinion even if it was already someone else's opinion? Personally when I post a problem I enjoy making a sort of mental note of how many people employed the various lines of reasoning, and also which people. I don't think there is much joy in getting 3 answers and having it stopped because no one can come up with one more point of view.

I also use 'agree with' for social reasons. I look out for chances to agree with the reasoning of someone who I may recently have had some disagreements or acrimonious exchanges with. I have always considered that a good way to mend hurt feelings or show that we can be 'over' a prior disagreement.

Quote

And the "WTP" posts are somewhat insulting to the person who started the thread (who obviously thought it was a problem).

I don't assume anyone's motives. Aren't lots of threads posted to settle an argument between a forum participant and his non-participant partner? Or some problems may be posted because the asker knows what he thinks is right but wants to know if it's a wtp or not! I know I'm repeating things I've said before, but "WTP" is good information as long as someone interprets it constructively. I may use that to realize that a concern I had pointing in the opposite direction is relatively miniscule, for example.

You didn't mention it, but I could much more understand your feeling this way about LOL than WTP.

Quote

Now it's true that perhaps some threads "deserve" the WTP treatment, but at the same time ignoring these threads will usually cause them to disappear, and a gentle comment that the thread might be in the wrong forum could be a less annoying and more productive way to handle the issue.

That has been tried and it has failed. True lots of times the asker was rude, but I'm one of the most experienced forum participants and I can't remember a single solitary time that anyone took it well when told their problem should be moved to B/I.

[sathyab]

Echognome, on Feb 20 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

I understand what you are saying Adam, but a few points:

1. If someone posts a clear reasoning that was close to the reasoning that you would think, it doesn't add anything to type the same reasoning.  However, it may be helpful to someone that you say that you were thinking along the same lines, so you would like to type "agree with XXX", rather than type the same reasoning over again.  Furthermore, say that we have two posts, both with reasoning that come to different conclusions.  Along comes Expert Poster who reads the responses and finds one of the posts compelling and along their lines of thinking.  Rather than not posting at all, I would rather have Expert Poster say "agree with XXX".

2. The WTP depends somewhat on context.  I understand the underlying tones of "why are you posting such an obvious problem?"  However, it could alternatively be, "this was a very easy decision for me to make," as opposed to "I'm considering 3 or 4 choices and it's close." 

3. Again, by doing a litmus test of feelings, I don't really think it will lead to anything.  Suppose we all come to the conclusion in this thread that one-liners are "bad".  So what happens next?  People will continue to do one-line responses (if not the current set of now educated posters, then a set of new-to-the-forum posters).  Do we flame them?  Do we have the moderators delete their posts? Etc.

4. I do recognize that the motive may simply be one of education.  "I do not like one-line posts, because..." or "One-line posts should be ok, because..." and that may help posters either think before responding or accept one-line posts.  I agree with you on that front.

The other problem with WTPs and LOLs is when people who frequently use them get selective.

Case in point: your recent post of a 3nt play problem in the Burlingame regional. In my opinion it was as close to a WTP as they get and there may be others who share that opinion. And yet most people didn't post one-liners, including the frequent-WTP-LOL crowd. It's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't have been derisive had someone else posted the problem. So while they're offensive quite often, they're not equal-opportunity-offense-dispensers.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

NP w/ them.

That's shocking. Almost as shocking as Dick Cheney saying "I don't have any problem with water-boarding".

(my first) LOL !

[Echognome]

sathyab, on Feb 20 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

The other problem with WTPs and LOLs is when people who frequently use them get selective.

Case in point: your recent post of a 3nt play problem in the Burlingame regional. In my opinion it was as close to a WTP as they get and there may be others who share that opinion. And yet most people didn't post one-liners, including the frequent-WTP-LOL crowd. It's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't have been derisive had someone else posted the problem. So while they're offensive quite often, they're not equal-opportunity-offense-dispensers.

Given that the winning line involved an endplay, I can't imagine it being a WTP for many posters...

But that's just me.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Feb 20 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 20 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

NP w/ them.

That's shocking. Almost as shocking as Dick Cheney saying "I don't have any problem with water-boarding".

(my first) LOL !

A lot more shocking than you choosing the fifth 4-word or shorter post in the thread to LOL immediately after saying the following.

Quote

The other problem with WTPs and LOLs is when people who frequently use them get selective.

Case in point: your recent post of a 3nt play problem in the Burlingame regional. In my opinion it was as close to a WTP as they get and there may be others who share that opinion. And yet most people didn't post one-liners, including the frequent-WTP-LOL crowd. It's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't have been derisive had someone else posted the problem. So while they're offensive quite often, they're not equal-opportunity-offense-dispensers.

It's hard for me to take offense though. I can't tell if you LOLed at my joke, at my comment because you didn't realize it was a joke, or at your joke. Or maybe some other option that hasn't even occured to me.

[matmat]

WTF?!

[sathyab]

I think a good way to avoid offensive posts is to have an exclusion-list on a per-user basis. Sort of like an ACL (Access Control List) in some file systems. So if a user "x" wants to exclude posts from say, "jd", "jl", "fl" or "rc" for instance, he builds such a list and it would preclude the listed users from posting messages to a thread started by "x". You can keep the list confidential, so nobody has to know who they're except you. But after a while when you see that the forum is relatively free from posts from the aforementioned users, people might start wondering.

The alternative is to use your signature line to accomplish it. Something like "the following people are requested NOT to reply to my threads. While the usefulness of your input may often be questionable, your offensiveness is rarely in question. Fortunately there are enough useful posts from others in the forum, that excluding you from discussion is not a great loss. Thank you"

[jdonn]

This is so unfair. How am I supposed to read a post like the last one and come up with any reply but "LOL sb!"? Too tough.

[mikeh]

I can figure out who jd and jl are.. but who are rc and fl.

Anyway, I like the basic idea, so note my signature, please

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Feb 20 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

I can figure out who jd and jl are.. but who are rc and fl.

Anyway, I like the basic idea, so note my signature, please

Should be f and rcl. But they weren't able to correct the error since they are banned from replying! Talk about your catch 22s.